posted
Watching the interview of Stephen Hawking on CNN brought my attention to his recent readership offering under the title of "The Grand Design", and here is an excerpt on the subject of the book...
The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.
Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.
Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.
...got me thinking for a moment, when Hawking's co-author, Leonard Mlodinow, was asked whether he was therefore an atheist in light of what he professes as a physicist, and he simply answered that it was irrelevant; is his viewpoint personally, outside of being a physicist, really irrelevant?
Yes, there is a need to separate the functioning of science from that of religion, whereby the former is governed by proofs and disproofs, and the latter's propositions need not be. However, should Mlodinow not be expected to have complete and unflinchingconfidence in what he himself acknowledges or professes to be scientifically demonstratable, which in this case is that "God was not required" to create the universe and by that token, our planet and ourselves? Should it not be relevant to his audience that what he is conveying to the audience, and thereby hoping [one would think] to convince the audience to accept psychologically, is also that of his own personal belief, even outside of being a physicist, and one which he has complete confidence in deep in his own consciousness?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago.
And it makes one wonder why the providential idea took hold if there wasn't someone to take note of it; or at least told to make note; or at least thinking, what is this stuff all about.
As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing.Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
But isn't this precisely what the religious faithful have said all along; spontaneous creation. That paragraph is intended for the scientific faithful as well. My view is the universe always was and will be, despite what the quantum theorists and astronomers say.
Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.
Since there is no way other than a mathematical model that predicts that statement what is the answer. Is there any way to know what 31st century physics will tell scientists today? What about 50th century physics?
''...got me thinking for a moment, when Hawking's co-author, Leonard Mlodinow, was asked whether he was therefore an atheist in light of what he professes as a physicist, and he simply answered that it was irrelevant; is his viewpoint, personally, outside of being a physicist, really irrelevant?
No it isn't irrelevant. This makes it seem as though he has something to hide. Atheists I'm aware of through literature proudly proclaim their atheism. As noted above wouldn't his theories and findings support his contention if he is atheistic. At that point he should have been asked if he was religious or agnostic.
It may be that Mlodinow has religious leanings but considers atheism an irrelevancy in the same way if he was asked about a religious background. If Mlodinow is an atheist then he may have more support in his scientific surroundings than he realizes. If Mlodinow is religious and was asked the question in his scientific surroundings and he answered irrelevant then his surroundings may be suddenly antisocial (considering the offensive attacks between scientists and religious people aimed at one another) if he declared a religiosity. My thoughts are Mlodinow has latent? religious leanings maybe brought on by Hawkings' sudden change of mind about the universe being finely tuned but natural. And since he worked with Hawking on the paper and obviously knows him well (I presume) his ''irrelevant'' comment may be aimed at Hawking for ''turncoating.'' In other words he may not have wanted to embarrass Hawking by tacking a flipflop label on him.
I'm inclined to think a lot of scientists don't really reveal much of their belief in anything outside their calculator.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As per the information above whose point of belief are you referring to, the scientists or the creationists?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
By "spontaneous creation", obviously Hawking and Mlodinow are alluding to the generation of the Universe (our universe) and possibly the various other universes from what they refer to as "nothingness". However, If I understood Mlodinow correctly, this "nothingness" is merely their way of referring to an entity that they consider to have likely been "unstable", and whose precise nature alludes them at this point. So it is not like the "nothingness" is really envisioned to be "nothing". In any case, as stated in the article provided, "spontaneous creation" here is in reference to the self-generation of the universe from this "nothingness" element, which the authors deemed to have occurred, without divine intervention. Mlodinow claims that they came to that conclusion from their mathematical simulations of the behavior of the universe and elements within it.
Their argument is that even the "creationists" are confronted with the same question in the end -- i.e. who would have created God, if God created the universe and all. The point being that if one balks at the proposition that the universe "spontaneously" created itself from "nothingness", then the same question should be logically applied to the being of an omnipresent supreme creator.
As for Mlodinow's personal faith, I just don't know, but I'd have to agree with the idea that in some quarters his reluctance to openly acknowledge what it is will certainly generate suspicion and the veracity thereof of their proclaimed findings. I mean, one would have to otherwise *assume* it is consistent with that of his own personal view in lieu of having a faith that proposes a supreme creator. It just doesn't make sense for either Hawking or Mlodinow to expect others to buy into their propositions, and not expect the same of themselves. This would have to mean, that the person who has been convinced of the findings, if he/she had been one with faith in divine intervention, then the said person would have had to abandon said faith. It would be hardly logical or fair for others to abandon their earlier perceptions out of favor to Hawking's and Mlodinow's findings, while the latter hold onto something entirely different from those findings. It is to this end, I ask if their personal beliefs are relevant.
As for the authors' idea of "spontaneous creation" as a natural event without divine intervention being a belief, they argue that it isn't merely belief on their part. They say it right there in article that they deduced it from application of the laws of gravity and quantum theory; re-read:
the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God
According to them, again mentioned in the article, it appears to us that this universe and our planet were created out of divine intervention, because the workings of our universe and our planet seem very "fine-tuned" to us, almost as though it was deliberately created to cater to humankind's needs. This though, according to the authors, stems from the fact that it is the very nature of our own universe, that everything in it strictly follows the laws inherent in it (universe). Otherwise, you simply would have a different outcome, like say, if the earth were a little further from the Sun, what would have happened, and likewise, if it were a little closer, what would have been the case, or if planets were to be diverted from their axes, etc. If there were any slightdeviations from the laws governed or the status quo, then we would have had entirely different outcomes from what they are as we observe them. So, the fact that we exist,dictates that the earth has to be at a certain distance from the Sun, and have and/or is made up of certain natural elements, nothing more or less.Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok!! I have nothing to back this up but I beleive the Universe is always was and there are multi universe some called it the bubble theory with their own laws of physics perhaps with as much as stars in our universe and I guess the soap would be like gravity.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
That viewpoint about the universe having always existed, essentially "eternal", is in line with Grumman's self-proclaimed own viewpoint. On the other hand, Hawking and Mlodinow maintain that the Universe indeed has a beginning...just not one that was sparked by intervention by an external supernatural being; rather, a self-generated beginning -- i.e. a "spontaneous" one.
Let's give the idea of the Universe "having always been" further thought, shall we:
It would be one thing if our universe was the singular one; however, if the existence of "multiverses" is accepted at the same time, with each universe having its own characteristics possibly peculiar to it and hence not necessarily the same as that of another universe [as the article also points out and one I took note of earlier], then one has to wonder if the "universe has always been" perspective is feasible and a "strong anthropic" [as the authors of the article would probably put] argument at that! I acknowledge the disclaimer made in the comment above about not having based the viewpoint therein on material substance, but just for sake of discussion and potential intuition thereof, the question that then arises might well be: Have all the other multiple universes also "always been"?
If yes, then what fundamentalenvironmental or material backdrop would have allowed that situation to have presented itself?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can we accurately define nothingness, isn't nothingness a state? and the people of various books claimed that God/Gods were self-creating ie spontaneous[lets forget about a personal Godhead who design every thing for a moment] that sounds suspiciously close to a self creating Universe,But whatever the first spark "divine" action some would say, it have would start a process that never ends,like dying stars that become the raw materials for everything from planets to life so, maybe dying universe became the raw materials for future universe.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but the authors here are saying that unlike the omnipresent supernatural creator, the universe actually has a beginning. Not to sound trite about it, it is just that this was done out of the generation of the universe out of "nothingness" on its own, without divine intervention.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember the movie Men In Black? where the cat had an entire universe attached to a collar around his neck and our own universe was enveloped in an even bigger universe being a part of some alien kid's marble or Jax set? that's the closest I have come to understand our place in the grand scheme of things.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to add to the above, with regards to the cosmological "creation" themes like those of the Kemet, e.g. the generation of the "creator" from "nothingness" which is devoid of light, or from the primeval waters of "darkness", spontaneously it's own, I can see where observation of resemblance might be made between that and what is being professed in the article, as Brada alluded to, but even such creation narratives at some point speak of the creator eventually uttering the creation of planets, elements like water, soil, living things etc, whereupon these elements would come into being. Were these uttering simply symbolic, and the ancients' way of describing how the universe came into being? An interesting question that came up here years ago, and still a good one to examine.
Meanwhile, the authors here might argue that unlike the "creation" stories of ancients like those of the Kemetic folks [taking it that these generally involve divine intervention of ensuing creation of planets and lifeforms, after self-generation of the creator from the primeval water of darkness], galaxies, stars, planets and satellites spontaneously came to existence on their own out of the elements of the universe, again without divine intervention.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Remember the movie Men In Black? where the cat had an entire universe attached to a collar around his neck and our own universe was enveloped in an even bigger universe being a part of some alien kid's marble or Jax set? that's the closest I have come to understand our place in the grand scheme of things.
I take it that you are referring to some kind of "bubble" that harbors our universe and possibly other universes? If so, then yes, I've heard something to that effect too. I am not sure, pending completely reading the Hawking's and Mlodinow's book, how much said authors adhere to that idea.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God
So if spontaneous creation is to happen the laws of gravity and quantum theory won't try to prevent it, they'll "allow" it
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not getting your point. The article is saying in that statement that it is the laws of gravity and quantum theory that has essentially allowed the observers (the researchers here, Hawking and Mlodinow) to simulate the concept of "universes spontaneously appear from nothing".
The laws of gravity and quantum theory are human interpretations of the processes of the environment and the behavior of our universe. The universe is not conscious of either the laws of gravity or quantum theory, but its characteristics and nature can be described in mathematical concepts of gravity and quantum theory, in terms that humans as the observers at hand [this is wherein the various anthropic theories have been invoked] can understand it.
So, these inbuilt [in the universe] processes or characteristics that can be described in terms of the laws of gravity and quantum theory [for us, the humans, not the universe, since it is not conscious, at least to my knowledge] are the reason universes exist and why they are able to "spontaneously appear from nothing". In other words, the universe already has features that are telltale signs for the observers (humans) to predict how the universe came into being, which in this case, is the "spontaneous appearance from nothing". The workings of our universe suggests that its workings adhere to certain unwritten laws of nature, that we describe with mathematical models. It therefore doesn't make sense to me to say that the "laws of gravity and quantum theory won't try to prevent spontaneous creation, they'll "allow" it", when these concepts merely describe the characteristics of the universe, and therefore permit the theoretical but materialistic simulation of how the universe came into being.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I'm not getting your point. The article is saying in that statement that it is the laws of gravity and quantum theory that has essentially allowed the observers (the researchers here, Hawking and Mlodinow) to simulate the concept of "universes spontaneously appear from nothing".
The laws of gravity and quantum theory are human interpretations of the processes of the environment and the behavior of our universe. The universe is not conscious of either the laws of gravity or quantum theory, but its characteristics and nature can be described in mathematical concepts of gravity and quantum theory, in terms that humans as the observers at hand [this is wherein the various anthropic theories have been invoked] can understand it.
So, these inbuilt [in the universe] processes or characteristics that can be described in terms of the laws of gravity and quantum theory [for us, the humans, not the universe, since it is not conscious, at least to my knowledge] are the reason universes exist and why they are able to "spontaneously appear from nothing". In other words, the universe already has features that are telltale signs for the observers (humans) to predict how the universe came into being, which in this case, is the "spontaneous appearance from nothing". The workings of our universe suggests that its workings adhere to certain unwritten laws of nature, that we describe with mathematical models. It therefore doesn't make sense to me to say that the "laws of gravity and quantum theory won't try to prevent spontaneous creation, they'll "allow" it", when these concepts merely describe the characteristics of the universe, and therefore permit the theoretical but materialistic simulation of how the universe came into being.
did the laws of gravity and quantum theory exist before matter was spontaneously created?
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, the laws of gravity and quantum theory are descriptions of our own universe's characteristics. As to whether the universe's forebear had these same characteristics (laws of nature), you'd have to refer to the authors themselves, since they claim that it appeared spontaneously out of "nothingness".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Again, the laws of gravity and quantum theory are descriptions of our own universe's characteristics. As to whether the universe's forebear had these same characteristics (laws of nature), you'd have to refer to the authors themselves, since they claim that it appeared spontaneously out of "nothingness".
where is the scientific proof that a state of nothingness could have existed or is even a meaningful word in the absolute sense?
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
By "spontaneous creation", obviously Hawking and Mlodinow are alluding to the generation of the Universe (our universe) and possibly the various other universes from what they refer to as "nothingness". However, If I understood Mlodinow correctly, this "nothingness" is merely their way of referring to an entity that they consider to have likely been "unstable", and whose precise nature alludes them at this point. So it is not like the "nothingness" is really envisioned to be "nothing".
I don't have full access to the book that just came out; all I have available to me at this point, is the TV interview both Hawking and Mlodinow took part in and their article. I can only assume from information given in these preliminary outlets, that their idea conforms to the "bubble" theory or as it was put in the article, multiverse [containing many universes]. This has in turn been linked to the "Big Bang" by some observers. In the TV interview, Mlodinow in a passing seemed to imply that "nothing" is not really "nothing per se", at which point he was interrupted from fully explaining how he understood the so-called "nothing" in a scientific sense. I reckoned from thereon that the implicit idea was likely that "nothing" alluded to an entity whose characteristics are not fully understood by researchers.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: However, If I understood Mlodinow correctly, this "nothingness" is merely their way of referring to an entity that they consider to have likely been "unstable", and whose precise nature alludes them at this point. So it is not like the "nothingness" is really envisioned to be "nothing".[/i]
Some people refer to an unproven "enity" and just use the word "god" or similar words instead.
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might interpret it that way, but physicists would argue that the existence of that "unproven entity" is proven by their mathematical simulations back into time. The "nothing" is what "something" came out of to produce what we call our universe. The use of "god", as the researchers see it, is problematic because at the point in time, back to the past, wherein "something" appears, it is envisioned that that something spontaneously generated by itself, and likewise, all the entities that follow.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic